Cadet's Right to Participate in ES vs. Cadet Maturity

[Eclipse]

The bare minimum that allows for the execution of the mission.  There is no other answer.

[commando1]

I think we have successfully finished a thread... :clap:

[AngelWings]

I think we have successfully finished a thread... :clap:

Ugh, umm, UNIFORMS, ABU'S, GREEN BOOTS, ahhhh, THE COLOR GREY, BERRY BOARDS, GET US OUT OF UNIFORMS. I'm sorry, I simply couldn't resist the urge.

[husker]

I've read through the several pages of this thread with great interest, as it well illustrates the main focus of my CAP career.  I think a number of important topics have been broached.  First, a disclaimer:  I am responsible for two ground team training programs:  one based at Alabama Wing, which draws around 120 participants from Wings in SER each weekend for a 6 month period, and the NGSAR school at NESA.  My experience with these two programs serves to either clarify or cloud the below opinions. 

I have a very simple opinion on the topic of the original thread question:  members (both cadet and senior) who are not mature enough to serve in a specialty should not be rated in that specialty.  I have seen many members (both cadet and senior) over the years that can fly through the tasks, but yet do not have the maturity, leadership, or followership skill necessary to be rated.  One good example of this is the GSAR Team Leader school at NESA.  Though we have 20 or so TL students each session, a number of them simply are not ready to be rated.   The NESA TL staff does a great job of teaching and mentoring the Team Leader students;  however, we do not have the time to be a leadership or followership academy.   They get credit for passing the tasks, but they are not rated in Eservices.  This happens in all three of the GSAR schools. 

An interesting point made earlier in the thread is that historically, in many wings, cadets = ground teams and ground teams=cadets.  Though there are wings out there with strong senior ground team participation, they seem to be few and far between.    This seems to be part of the organizational culture, however unfortunate it may be.   This is also a detriment to the organization; if we look at our customer's requirements, many preclude mission participation under 18.  This automatically disqualifies a fair percentage of our organization's trained/qualified personnel.  We as an organization should make a concerted effort to increase the participation of senior members in ground team training.  I know it is difficult; as an organization, we often struggle with simply putting on quality training that meets the minimum national standard, so the "nice to haves" sometime fall by the wayside.

That being said, I don't believe we should preclude cadets from ES training in any area under which they could potentially serve.  I think it is short sided to automatically disqualify cadet's participation from either training or actual mission participation.  I think that training cadets in ES is important for two reasons. 

First, a fair percentage of cadets enjoy ES, and ES training may provide the foundation for a long term CAP career.  Many cadets like to be "out in the woods," training, bivoucing, etc.   I know, because I spent 5 years as one of those "ES" cadets that we all have seen;  WIWAC, I had no interest in drill teams, color guards, etc;  what kept me involved was ES, and the small glimmer that I may participate in an actual mission.  This background in cadet ES is the reason that I rejoined CAP after college, and why I am still involved today.  Though I wholeheartedly support the entirety of the cadet program, I believe that encouraging cadet participation in ES is good for both the cadet and the organization.  To continue the argument, automatically precluding cadet participation in actual missions seems short sided to me as well.  What logic do we have to encourage cadet participation in training, but preclude them from execution?  Do we tell cadets to take achievement tests, but fail to deliver on the promotions?  That being said, we need to remember that common sense should prevail.  As Ned said, what is to say an 18 year old senior member is more "mature" than a 20 year old cadet.   Do we want 13 year cadets on crash sites?  No.  But what about 17?  18?   What about the very immature 27 year old senior member?   What about the 35 year old senior member who had a relative recently die in an automobile accident?     These are questions that are not easily legislated in regulations or supplements.  ICs and GTLs need to take a step back and apply common sense answers to these questions.  There are a number of roles that a cadet can fill if they are not emotionally or physically able to participate fully.

The second reason that I believe that cadet participation in ES is vitally important is simple:  ES training is simply one of the best leadership laboratories around.  There are naturally occurring stressors in ES training that have the potential to provide amazing lessons in leadership, responsibility, and teamwork, which constitute the bedrock of our cadet program.

[Extremepredjudice]

 :clap: :clap: Well said sir!

Hopefully I'll see you this summer!